It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Japan Delays Sanctions After N. Korea Threat of War

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:20 AM
link   
In a move described to give the North Koreans more time to explain the fate of Japanese abductees, Japan decided Friday to delay imposing economic sanctions on North Korea. The DPRK recently warned Japan that it would consider any economic sanctions an act of war, and would physically retaliate. South Korea has been opposed to sanctions, citing that they would set back the multilateral denuclearization talks with North Korea.
 



story.news.yahoo.com
KENJI HALL, (AP) IBUSUKI, Japan - Tokyo and Seoul have pursued independent contacts with the North, in addition to participating in three rounds of six-nation talks also involving the United States, China and Russia. The talks have produced no breakthroughs.

Koizumi is under growing pressure from the Japanese public to get tough with Pyongyang.

North Korea has returned five of 13 Japanese citizens it admitted abducting in the 1970s and 80s. It said the eight others were dead, but Japan suspects they may be alive, especially because the North has failed to turn over their remains.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think Kim's reaction of threatening a war upon economic sanctions is showing just how desperate he may have become to strike out at any country attempting to undermine him. I think Japan probably made a good move here, to give North Korea more time to deliver the information of the abductees. I have a hunch that North Korea may very well have delivered on their promise to retaliate physically. The other problem is that South Korea has a point- what's more important, the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, or finding out the fate of some abductees? Japan instituting economic sanctions on the DPRK may well hinder the important multilateral talks.

North Korea has been living very much in fear of nuclear and conventional strikes or invasion for many years, and they have good reason. The US has on numerous occasions in the last 30 years been on the brink of attacking North Korea, and in one case had B-52's all the way to the DMZ-- but turned around and came back.

Related News Links:
rds.yahoo.com
r ds.yahoo.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
WAR: North Korea Appears Ready for Multilateral Talks
NEWS: North Korea Threatens War over Sanctions
N Korea threatens to turn Japan into 'nuclear sea of fire'




posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:31 AM
link   
This is great
The message this sends is no matter who you are, all you have to do is threaten a non superpower nation with war, and you will get your way. Japan should not have backed down in this case.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   
If Japan hadnt backed down there is a very real risk that North Koreans would have sent over a few nukes as even US intelligence (which is at best sketchy due to NK's secrecy wall) states they have a potential arsenal for at least half a dozen nuclear missiles and recently tested 1 by leveling a mountain which was caught on satellite by the outside world. this would have been devestating to the tiny Isle of japan and their economy, not to mention the fight that would break out with an already overstreched US army most of which is tied up in the quagmire in Iraq.
Good choice, but how long will the world put up with North Koreas scare tactics regarding its bordering neighbours?!?!?!?


[edit on 17-12-2004 by radiant_obsidian]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Firstly, TrueAmerican this reads more like an Op/Ed piece than news.

Secondly, it's a good thing Japanese leaders haven't been following ATS discussions or there would now be another war.

North Korea has a history of narrow views backed up by China. The NKs started one war, and while chances are they will not start another without Chinese acquiescence, threats from those folks are nothing to be scoffed at. Remember the USS Pueblo

North Korea wants something from Japan that apparently is not on the table. Could be an apology for WW II, I don't know.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Well, I agree that Kim might have done something physical, but I really don't think he would send a nuke to Japan, right off the bat. I mean surely he is not THAT crazy....or is he? He has already admitted to abducting many Japanese, and then he sends the wrong remains to Japan, which under DNA analysis proved to be from other people. He can't blame the people of Japan for wanting some kind of retribution. At this point in time, with many North Koreans fleeing for their lives out of sheer hunger, economic sanctions against North Korea would be that much more devastating. IMO, N. Korea is about to reach a breaking point.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Backing down really was the only choice. While I doubt any nuclear weapons would have been involved, I am pretty certain a few missles would have been launched Japan's way even if just as a warning.

With Japan claiming China may be a possible enemy in the future, I bet they are glad of the alliance with the US. Japan is in a tricky situation right now.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Kriz_4]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Firstly, TrueAmerican this reads more like an Op/Ed piece than news.

Secondly, it's a good thing Japanese leaders haven't been following ATS discussions or there would now be another war.


Op/Ed piece? No. Link is provided to the original news source, please read. I believe I reported an unbiased summary of the article in the intro, as required by ATSNN. And gave my opinion at the end. But call it what you will.

And secondly, if Japanese leaders have been reading ATS discussions, they would see opinions are split here just like in other parts of the world. Some will percieve it that "Japan should not back down." Others, like myself will perceive it as a good move by Japan, to give North Korea more time to deliver the goods before imposing such sanctions, and considering that N. Korea could well do something very stupid.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   
hmmm...tough decision. Overall I think Japan did the right thing on holding off on sanctions, but I'm sure I would have done the same. I would try and make NK feel like an annoying fly at a dinner table. By (appearing to) ignore there threats, I would not let them percieve themselves as a big threat to anyone. By doing what they want you to do you make them feel that there voice counts, I would not do that. again: Make them feel like a fly, you swat at it a few times, and if it keeps getting in your face and bothering you, you kill it.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Over the centuries, it has been demonstrated too many times that appeasement of tyrants is the wrong tactic.

It only emboldens them to try for more, as the British and French learned when they tried appeasing Hitler before World War II.

If North Korea is in fact near a breaking point, perhaps standing up to Kim would also hasten his end and put an end to another of the world's hot spots.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Over the centuries, it has been demonstrated too many times that appeasement of tyrants is the wrong tactic.

It only emboldens them to try for more, as the British and French learned when they tried appeasing Hitler before World War II.

If North Korea is in fact near a breaking point, perhaps standing up to Kim would also hasten his end and put an end to another of the world's hot spots.


Unfortunately, one major thing separates this history with previous history. And that is: nuclear warheads. There can never be enough diplomacy involved to avoid the use of these. Again I applaud the Japanese for stopping and thinking twice before provoking Kim with economic sanctions. Hopefully in the near future, through diplomatic means, the nuclear crisis with North Korea can be solved, and the people of the area can emerge unscathed from the grips of nuclear fear. It's ok to hope, yes? I just hope...I am not dreaming.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Unfortunately, one major thing separates this history with previous history. And that is: nuclear warheads. There can never be enough diplomacy involved to avoid the use of these. Again I applaud the Japanese for stopping and thinking twice before provoking Kim with economic sanctions. Hopefully in the near future, through diplomatic means, the nuclear crisis with North Korea can be solved, and the people of the area can emerge unscathed from the grips of nuclear fear. It's ok to hope, yes? I just hope...I am not dreaming.


Alas, your post shows why so many countries such as North Korea and Iran are working so feverishly to obtain nuclear weapons. The basic issue with appeasing these tyrants - whether or not they have nuclear weapons - is that history shows you will end up confronting them sooner or later. How can it not be better to do it now while they are relatively weaker than they will be later? What negotiations - besides giving in to all his demands - do you think will make Kim decide to quit acting like a mad man and threatening any country that gets in his way? If we do it the appeasement way, Kim will have gained a track record that proves to him (and others!) that threats work. Kim will have been handed power beyond his wildest dreams. Many more millions of people may die than are at risk if we act from strength today. And there will be new names added to list containing the likes of Neville Chamberlain.

Don't repeat the mistakes of the past!!!

Addendum: You also mentioned a hope that negotiations would solve this issue. Please keep in mind that tyrants do not think like 'normal people'. You cannot really reason with them. They crave power and respect little else. So, having given into threats, what exactly would your negotiating position be? You'd be left with only with asking "How high?" when Kim said "Jump!".

Now, is that really the kind of world you want your kids to live in?


[edit on 12/17/2004 by centurion1211]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I think they Japanese first would like to see an improved (american?) missile shield around their island and THEN drag Little Kim from his high heels...



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Don't repeat the mistakes of the past!!!

Addendum: You also mentioned a hope that negotiations would solve this issue. Please keep in mind that tyrants do not think like 'normal people'. You cannot really reason with them. They crave power and respect little else. So, having given into threats, what exactly would your negotiating position be? You'd be left with only with asking "How high?" when Kim said "Jump!".

Now, is that really the kind of world you want your kids to live in?


Cent, the negotiations and diplomatic resolve I speak of (and hope for), would of course include IAEA and/or US monitoring of their installations. Legitimate denuclearization. Not just some idle "deal with the dictator" game show. And yes, any day of the week I would choose for my children to grow up in this kind of world, aworld where diplomacy came first, and physical action last. In your world, you would have it that "Oh, Japan, impose sanctions now, who cares what Kim says." Two days later when Japan is sitting in a sea of fire, with millions dead, the world in an uproar, and nuclear weapons inbound to the USA, China and Russia, I'd like to see then what kind of world your children will grow up in.

No thanks. Take your warmongering somewhere else. Off this planet, hopefully.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

No thanks. Take your warmongering somewhere else. Off this planet, hopefully.


I never said no to negotiations, just pointed out that in the real world you have to be able to negotiate from strength - not weakness.

IAEA Inspectors? You mean the ones that Iran and North Korea keep kicking out of their countries (because they might find something illegal)?

True, can't you do better than resorting to calling me a "warmongerer" just because I have a different opinion (one backed up by facts, not fantasy)?



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
I never said no to negotiations, just pointed out that in the real world you have to be able to negotiate from strength - not weakness.


Kind of hard to negotiate when your country has become a mass human grave.


IAEA Inspectors? You mean the ones that Iran and North Korea keep kicking out of their countries (because they might find something illegal)?


Actually, if you had researched the subject, you would know that Iran had legitimate reasons for refusing the inspections of certain military sites, which fell outside the requirements of IAEA. And as to North Korea, they had been allowing inspectors up to the point that they withdrew from the pact, in a tift over the US's supposed denial of shipments and other things. The point is, that with appropriate diplomatic groundwork, IAEA inspections can work, and have worked.


True, can't you do better than resorting to calling me a "warmongerer" just because I have a different opinion (one backed up by facts, not fantasy)?


Ahh, but it is you who generalize, not I, for I have not called you a warmonger. In this specific case, however, with this specific subject at hand, and your attitude and implications that Japan should have just gone ahead with the sanctions without further diplomatic attempts, to negotiate from a position of "strength" despite a stern warning from North Korea that it would consider sanctions an act of war and retaliate physically- yes, I consider that warmongering to a degree. You said-

How can it not be better to do it now while they are relatively weaker than they will be later?


Ok, fine, we can agree to disagree, no prob. Had you been sitting in the middle of Tokyo, though, and your life was immediately at stake, I wonder if you'd feel the same way.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Firstly, TrueAmerican this reads more like an Op/Ed piece than news.


No, it is clearly not an OP/ED piece FYI not sure where you are comming from on this
.

Great article by the way TA. However, my belief is that they made a mistake. Kim as I have noted before, behaves like my 2 year old. It really is that simple. He throws a tantrum and gets what he wants. At some point the world needs to give him a time out.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Thanks, FredT...And I hear ya about Kim and the baby thing.


Originally posted by FredT
At some point the world needs to give him a time out.


I agree. I suppose ultimately then, what the issue here may be, is at what point should the world give him a time out. Was this the time to do it, for our own purposes, to suit our own needs, when the Japanese people are clearly the ones who would immediately suffer the consequences of a 2-year old baby fit? I think we need to be careful with our sentiments here, and maybe take a look at what reality is for those to be immediately affected by the reality of North Korea saying to you "You put sanctions on us and you can expect it coming. War." In their shoes, you are awarded a different perception.

And from yet another perception, so suppose we were about to impose sanctions on China. And China this time, since they might be feeling just a wee bit upset at overagressive US foreign policy, said "Any sanctions on us and we will take it as a declaration of war. And not only that, but we will respond physically." Now in order of magnitude, I think this would be a fair comparison to what just happened in NK/Japan, if nothing else other than just to illustrate the point. And it's not like China hasn't threatened us before, either. Put in this position, I would certainly hope our government would not just immediately impose the sanctions, without taking a time out. To think about what was just said.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Fred, this is where I'm coming from (re: Op/Ed dart):

I think Kim's reaction of threatening a war upon economic sanctions is showing just how desperate he may have become to strike out at any country attempting to undermine him. I think Japan probably made a good move here, to give North Korea more time to deliver the information of the abductees. I have a hunch . . .

These are opinions- editorialized opinions. While I may agree with them they are NOT news.

Back to your value judgment (Fred)- what true posted reads Op/Ed to me. You don't see his post that way. As you well know, I think that some of yours are Op/Eds as well. Foundationally an Op/Ed clearly denotes something as not news.

It can be argued that true used such a device by using I think . . . as a lead in. If that is so, then clearly I am wrong. (from looking at the forum reqs. I am wrong)


Back to the REAL issues- - -

I personally believe that the NKs are playing a mind-game with the Japanese. What is a dozen abductees? Big deal- it is nothing. The Japanese screwed up by allowing the threat to become public. None of this should have been out in the open unless the Japanese hoped some kind of public pressure would move the NKs.

OR - - - 'conspiracy' - - - maybe this is exactly what the Japanese wanted. This sure takes the heat off the PM for not getting the people back. Places a few more 'bad guy NK' chips on the table as well.

Now I am not saying it is not reprehensible and criminal and wrong and, and, and - - - -



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Back to your value judgment (Fred)- what true posted reads Op/Ed to me. You don't see his post that way. As you well know, I think that some of yours are Op/Eds as well.


Ah, Joe, have you ever submitted a story for ATSNN? Can't remember thats why I am asking. The First paragraf in the story is a summary in the submitters own words about the event he/she is reporting. The last paragraf is for his or her take on the news event. This is how ATSNN is set up. Reporters, like Moderators, can have opinions on events. If you look at TA's opening statement you will find it free of bias. For what constitutes an op/ed piece, look at my 3 part article (so far) on Airbus.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   
People you have to also realize that Japan is the only nation in history to ever suffer the effects of a Nuclear weapon used against them. The people who are in charge of the nation now are the ones who were younger when they had to witness the horror and just pure HELL[/] that were the effects of this weapon. They do not ever want to have to put the people of Japan, or any nation for that matter in that situation. I believe that Japan as indeed done good with their decision.

Noone who has not gone through an experience like that has no right to say take action against the threat that may bring it about once again.

I definetly hope the U.S. is planning counter-measures and defenses 24/7 with Japan to make sure this threat never becomes reality again.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join